According to the Constitution itself, or according to some judge's claim that this is, according to accumulated precedent, the correct interpretation?
In any case, that question is moot, because marriage, as I've said already, is not a constitutional "right" at all, and hence cannot be federally protected by the 14th amendment.
The Constitution itself talks about property and freedom of contract. The Constitution does not define what those are. The Constitution itself presupposes other sources of law to define these things in order to determine what is constitutionally protected.
Maybe Droopy can explain how a court is supposed to apply the Constitution without interpreting it. Or how not all judges agree on how to interpret the Constitution.
There are some kinds of stupid that you can't fake, as Droopy shows us. Once marriage is created and defined by a state, a liberty/property interest attaches under the 14th Amendment. Try telling a judge in any jurisdiction of the United States that state-sanctioned marriage is not protected under the 14th Amendment and see how far you get.
What Droopy is doing here is sanctifying his ignorance by claiming that anyone who knows what they're talking about doesn't believe in the "real" Constitution like he does is just a sophist or something. He is trying to use his professed belief in the sanctity of the Constitution to deflect any criticism of his value judgments----just like everyone does, and just like all believers in the Bible think they have the one, true interpretation.
Yes they do, but only because the federal constitution doesn't mention marriage, or privacy, or abortion, or much else that has for several decades been effectively nationalized and become the fodder of culture war, with no small thanks precisely to the mechanitions of the lawyer class, a particularly virulent sub-species of parasitical organisms that thrive at the expense of society, in all too many cases, rather than as a cooperative and productive aspect of it.
Marriage has always had distinct limitations and conditions attached to it, such as age, maturity and long standing social mores and norms grounded in centuries of human experience and accumulated wisdom. The concept "marriage" and the concept "homosexual" are mutually exclusive, and cannot be compounded without the destruction of the fundamental meaning and implications of the concept "marriage"
This is 100% irrelevant to what I said. If the state defines marriage, then a person who meets the requirements for marriage in that state has a liberty/property interest in it.
Neither did I mention privacy, or abortion, or "much else." This is just more of Droopy not liking lawyers because he is threatened by anyone who knows what they are talking about---as if all lawyers have the same point of view in the "culture war" or are all arguing for the same interpretation and construction of the Constitution. How the expansion of rights, which is a limit on government power, automatically equates to a leftist agenda is anyone's guess. Let's wait for the brilliant, erudite, so much smarter than everyone else Droopy to learn how to spell "machinations" before we ask him.
No. I am saying that all rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. Marriage is a matter of tradition, custom and deep moral gravitas. It is not an unalienable right, in the sense of the other such rights mentioned in the Declaration (which its interesting you should mention here, as the Declaration is not a legal document) because it can be alienable if the core conditions of its legitimate exercise are not met. Homosexuality delegitimates the core meaning of the concept, and hence, can be alienable where homosexuals are concerned.
I never mentioned the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and property is taken from the 14th Amendment. If the requirements for marriage are not met, then the right is not "alienable." The right did not exist in the first place. Under the 14th Amendment, a person must have a legally recognized liberty or property right, not merely a unilateral expectation.
Notice here the reliance upon procedure and process over principle and logical coherence. It was always, among others, the lawyers who were angry, put out and who felt threatened and cornered by the prophets and the faithful Saints in the Book of Mormon.
Note here the reliance on platitudes and ignorance over how the framers themselves assumed that the judiciary operates (common law). It was always, among others, the half-literate and poseurs at knowing what they are talking about who were angry, put out, and who felt threatened and cornered by people who have actually been trained in this field and have done it for their profession.
Darth is interested only, as I've always suspected, only in case law; only in what "the courts" have said and the precedents that have been set, not in the original intent of the Constitution, and not with philosophical rigor. Legal, Socratic reasoning is not the same thing as philosophical reasoning or a philosophical temperament.
What "the courts" have said and the precedents that have been set are how courts understand and apply the original intent of the Constitution. Once again, everyone thinks that their personal value judgments are embodied in the Constitution and only they know the true meaning.
I think that Droopy heard a talk show host on AM radio mention "Socratic method" in law school one time, and now he thinks that covers American jurisprudence or the actual practice of law entirely. This would be similar to watching batting practice and thinking that this is actually how a game of baseball is played.
Case law and common law are the same thing, by the way.
Yes, yes, I learned all this in my 100 level American Government class years ago.
Hey, I got my First Aid Merit Badge. Maybe I can go tell doctors how to perform surgery!
You're problem is then to supply the logical and conceptual link with "liberty", as mentioned in the Declaration, and property, with marriage as traditionally defined.
Little children cannot drink or smoke, or drive a vehicle. I cannot marry my sister or my mother. Homosexual marriage is in direct and open conflict with the fundamental prime directives and preconditions of a morally and socio-culturally healthy society, as well as with the imperative to reproduce our own kind. It is in direct conflict with the entire Judeo-Christian concept of marriage, gender, family and the purpose of human sexual relations. Hence, the sheer weight of legal word gaming and the sheer weight of any edifice of case law is of no value unless it is in harmony with the Constitution, and the Constitution never mentions marriage. Marriage is a matter of culture, not constitutional law. Hence, the state should, through law, make every attempt to preserve, maintain and protect marriage, but it has no business defining, or redefining it.
Just to clarify, "liberty" is mentioned in the 5th and 14th Amendments. As in, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That Droopy thinks I am taking this language from the Declaration of Independence truly shows his dazzling knowledge of what the hell he is talking about.
problem"---the logical and conceptual link---is that liberty and property interests are defined by other sources of law. This would also require having some vague idea of what exactly it is you are pontificating about, which is why Droopy just launches off into more platitudes while explicitly saying that "liberty" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, instead of from two constitutional amendments.
Where this goes from stupid to profoundly r******* is that Droopy is acting as if I said homosexuals have a constitutional right to marriage, which I never did. But since he brought up this point I never made, how can the state "preserve, maintain and protect marriage" without defining it?
And since the 9th Amendment makes it clear that the Bill of Rights does not list all rights that could possibly exist, and the 10th Amendment vests all authority not designated to the federal government to the states and to the people, what is the constitutional basis for saying that the people cannot choose to "redefine" marriage if they so choose?
The fact that Droopy purports to be a defender of a church whose members once claimed in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to have a constitutional right to practice polygamy
makes this even better.
However, it remains that once a person fulfills the state-defined requirements for marriage, he or she does have a constitutionally protected right in the liberty/property interest the state has created. What Droopy wants everyone to think is that every single court in the United States has gotten this wrong but he is right because he believes in this mythical "pure Constitution" that is somehow unrelated to common law.
It has already been defined as a general rule, by all healthy societies in history, as heterosexual and monogamous, and the state should encourage and protect that institution, but not be involved in avant garde social engineering in the name of exaggerated concern for the desires (not "rights") of tiny deviant minorities seeking cultural acceptance by force.
The problem, as I've now stated over and over and over again, is that over time, case law tends to trump the original intent and meaning of the Constitution. See Roe v Wade and the large body of case law attendant to it. We can't get rid of Roe now because its a "right". Is there something in the Constitution justifying such a claim? No. But the case law, from Roe, has been established, and the Constitution, as with universal healthcare, the welfare state, the Fairness Doctrine, the ESA, wetlands regulation, the nationalization of banks, the voiding of legal contracts and the taking over of corporations, our monetary policy etc., is no longer even a peripheral consideration.
This has nothing to do with anything I said, since I was talking about the judiciary giving federal protection to rights that the state has actually created.
If Droopy's demonstrated reading comprehension is this good, we can only imagine his mind snapping like a steel trap on the Constitution.
Droopy has to resort to Roe v. Wade
because, like Sarah Palin, this is the only case that people who parrot platitudes about the Constitution have ever heard of. Where the case law is that establishes a constitutional right to universal healthcare, the welfare state, the Fairness Doctrine, the ESA, wetlands regulation, the nationalization of banks, the voiding of legal contracts and the taking over of corporations, our monetary policy etc., I have no idea.
This is a sockpuppet. I'll figure out who in time.
You're knocking down your own strawmen as fast as you can set them up. Nowhere have I ever claimed that common law is antithetical to the Constitution. Nowhere have I ever claimed that case law is antithetical to the Constitution. What I have held consistently is that case law has become the primary means of circumventing and rewriting the Constitution through the incremental bleeding of case law into the Constitution, erasing its core character over time.
Sorry, Coggins. Not a sock puppet.
I wonder if Droopy is aware that case law and common law are the same f*****g thing. My bet is no.